Ventura v. Vella-Marrone et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEN VENTURA, 	Case No. 1:26-cv-01461
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
FRAN VELLA-MARRONE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Ben Ventura filed this lawsuit against Defendants Fran Vella-
Marrone, Brian Gotlieb, and Genine Edwards. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges that “Defendants Gotlieb and Edwards frequently violated due process with
support from Fran Vella-Marrone” Id.
Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 4.
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/21/26 Page 1
of 3

2
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
III. 	Analysis
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions that involve
“federal questions” that arise under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the
United States. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	“As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts
may exercise only those powers authorized by the Constitution and statute.” Fisher
v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). 	Federal courts have an on-going
obligation to examine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action
and may raise the issue sua sponte. 	Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010);
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/21/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Here, Plaintiff has asserted that Defendants allegedly violated due process.
However, Plaintiff has not asserted any allegations in his complaint that could show
his rights were violated. Conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct without
specific factual allegations fail to state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 	Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to assert allegations
establishing that this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court dismiss
the complaint because Plaintiff has failed to properly plead jurisdiction and because
it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Dated: 	May 21, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/21/26 Page 3
of 3